Blame for abuses in Iraq

[PhillyKev 0]

Here's some more blame...

Quote

A Senate hearing into the abuse of Iraqi prisoners was told on Tuesday that Lt. Gen. William Boykin, an evangelical Christian under review for saying his God was superior to that of the Muslims, briefed a top Pentagon (news - web sites) civilian official last summer on recommendations on ways military interrogators could gain more intelligence from Iraqi prisoners.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20040511/ts_nm/iraq_abuse_general_dc

[billvon 2,471]

>Lt. Gen. William Boykin, an evangelical Christian under review for
> saying his God was superior to that of the Muslims, briefed a top
>Pentagon (news - web sites) civilian official last summer on
> recommendations on ways military interrogators could gain more
> intelligence from Iraqi prisoners.

He must have been engaging in Crusade!

[TheAnvil 0]

I arrived on-site at 3ish this morning for a project I'm working on up here in VA. Just got back from dinner and didn't see your post until just now. A bit tired, so please ignore any mis-spellings or grammatical faux pas.

I don't normally read the Army Times - nor the Navy times or AF times - as they are considered akin to the national enquirer by most service members I know. Sometimes they produce good work, sometimes not - this being a fine example of the latter.

The article's author obviously has a problem with Rumsfeld and senior leadership then goes about in a rambling sort of manner, throwing factual tid-bits out with no real underlying structure or logic.

Not impressed with its author or his/her conclusions. I'd be disappointed if the one-star's letter of admonishment is the harshest penalty received by any officer. I think there need to be some lieutenants and possibly captains court martialed, but that's only me going off of what I've seen/heard through the media.

Bush's speech praising Rumsfeld was both needed AND a masterful political counterstroke to the left's recent attacks. Truly enjoyed reading about it.

Sorry if my absence worried anyone. I've been pre-occupied with work as of late.

Beers to all,
a very tired but smiling

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

I was referring to cutting his head off with a knife and posting it on a website. We all know they Al Queda are cowardly murderers. But this specific act was done to focus attention on the prison abuse scandal.

I highly doubt the prison abuse scandal resulted in Nick Berg's death. He was a dead man as soon as he was captured; remember Daniel Pearl? Sure it was used for propoganda purposes related to the scandal. But Berg would never have been released. Does anyone know of any AQ hostages that were taken and then released?

[happythoughts 0]

Interesting. Sleep deprivation is regarded as a form of torture in Iraq, but not in the US. The FBI used it on Americans.

I guess Janet Reno was except from laws and stuff like that.
cnn link

Quote

Actually, there were two FBI presences: the hostage negotiators, who tried to calm Koresh and make deals with him, and the elite Hostage Rescue Team, which was intent on ratcheting up the pressure.

The rescue team, meanwhile, was hitting the compound with bright lights and noise: the squeal of rabbits being slaughtered, the high-pitched tone of a phone off the hook, dentist's drills, helicopters.

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Bush's speech praising Rumsfeld was both needed AND a masterful political counterstroke to the left's recent attacks. Truly enjoyed reading about it.

You're impressed easily.
If Bush took a crap you'd be impressed by it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

Quote

Bush's speech praising Rumsfeld was both needed AND a masterful political counterstroke to the left's recent attacks. Truly enjoyed reading about it.

You're impressed easily.
If Bush took a crap you'd be impressed by it.

Well that certainly contributed to the discourse.

As did this post.

[Beerlight 0]

Quote

base283:
I am interested in your above statement. do you have any links to justify your statement?

Beerlight
Nope, no specific links. Maybe I can find it in the same links that said that Kuwait/US were "lateral drilling"
Fair.
"lateral drilling" ,reservoir, kuwait

http://www.tanganyikaoil.com/s/Syria.asp

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4093.htm

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/12-14-00.html

base283:
Ok, the world is still waiting for the WMD´s. where are they at? How could they show proof of WMD´s if they didn´t have them (the logic train says)?

Beerlight
Oh comeone now, do you really believe there were NO WMD's in Iraq?!! Seriously, he gassed how many Iranians and Kurds? I guess those weren't WMD"s?

base283:
3000 is my propagandized guess until I made this search http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/12-14-00.html
now I have no clue.

base283:
22.7m population/6.4bn world pop is equal to 0,03%
How does your math view this? How can this minority cause the downfall of the world?

Beerlight
Kinda like OBL can, eh? Takes very few freaks out there to change the course of something, don't you think? Method used against USS Cole?

base283:
not to diss the dead but 17 killed in suicide bombing. This method is a bit old. What did these suicidal killers change the course of? Do you really think that the Cole incident defines the “downfall”?

base283:
I am Asking questions and relating to the Propaganda That I Hear. I have no stance on anything,
So would it be too much to ask that you give me the propaganda spins to support your views?
I just spent an hour researching this theme, be fair and do the same.
I think that the internet is like the bible in the sense that one can transpose it to say what one wishes. I invite you and others to do it. so please don´t take ANYTHING that I quoted or linked to as my belief. I am just a small insignificant mouse caught between the rolling wheels of Propagandi trying to figure out wazzup.
take care,
space

Tracy,

I'll respond to your request.

- The U.S./coaltion wouldn't be IN Iraq if SH would not have attacked Kuwait in 90'. And, even if someone "was" lateral drilling Iraqi oil, is that reason to attack/kill/rape/steal from Kuwait????????????? Plenty of evidence to support that anywhere on this internet you wish to look.......I don't need to look.

- Next, Iraq is a large country. They have many, many areas to hide WMD material.

- As for a minority wreaking havoc upon the world? You do see that it is happening, right? I mean, these are Islamic fundamentalist, right? Islam is a religion based upon peace, so these few animals that are using terroist tactics, ie. car bombs, slitting of civilian throats....they are the minority, right?

Dude, we are the Infidels. They are wishing to kill everyone not of them. That would include you also.

- Now on this prisoner abuse. Any abuse upon Iraqi prisoners was from an untrained group, and a small group at that. Not sure how many guards the coaltion employ, but I'd guess it's in the thousands. So, when 7 or 10 individuals don't protect some prisoners, there should not be a full call to have Rumsfeld resign...

I believe in the Geneva Conventions. I also believe when they were written, that noone EVER fathomed the type of "enemy" we would be up against today.

People can say what they will, but there is evil over there, it's remnants of SH forces, and terror cells of Al Qaeda....and they must be stopped.

sorry for the long post.

Buck

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Bush's speech praising Rumsfeld was both needed AND a masterful political counterstroke to the left's recent attacks. Truly enjoyed reading about it.

You're impressed easily.
If Bush took a crap you'd be impressed by it.

Well that certainly contributed to the discourse.

As did this post.

You're welcome. Semester's over, I can stop being a professor for a couple of months.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,279]

Quote

Oh comeone now, do you really believe there were NO WMD's in Iraq?!! Seriously, he gassed how many Iranians and Kurds? I guess those weren't WMD"s?

How long ago? That proves he had them in the past, no disputing that, but what about anything recent?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Beerlight 0]

Quote

How long ago? That proves he had them in the past, no disputing that, but what about anything recent?

He had them in the past, and from a web excerpt:

"Between 1997 and 2002, Iraq prevented UN weapons inspectors from entering the country and the resulting controversy at the beginning of 2003 was whether or not Iraq used their absence to develop weapons of mass destruction in violation of UN resolutions."

- If SH didn't have anything to hide, why did he deny the inspectors entry? Did SH require more time to bury the WMD's/produce more?

- This is easy. He didn't comply with UN resolution. Case closed.

Can't be really much clearer than that.

v/r

Buck

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Quote

How long ago? That proves he had them in the past, no disputing that, but what about anything recent?

He had them in the past, and from a web excerpt:

"Between 1997 and 2002, Iraq prevented UN weapons inspectors from entering the country and the resulting controversy at the beginning of 2003 was whether or not Iraq used their absence to develop weapons of mass destruction in violation of UN resolutions."

- If SH didn't have anything to hide, why did he deny the inspectors entry? Did SH require more time to bury the WMD's/produce more?

- This is easy. He didn't comply with UN resolution. Case closed.

Can't be really much clearer than that.

v/r

Buck

Maybe you forgot that in March 2003 the UN inspectors in Iraq reported no evidence of WMDs, right about the time that GWB requested that they leave for their own safety.

"We know where they are" (Rummy) trumped the people actually on the ground in Iraq. Tough luck on poor Rummy that he didn't really know anything of the sort.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,279]

Quote

- If SH didn't have anything to hide, why did he deny the inspectors entry? Did SH require more time to bury the WMD's/produce more?

Some sort of power games/ pissing contest would probably fit.

Quote

This is easy. He didn't comply with UN resolution. Case closed.

Resolution 1441? While SH did not fully comply the weapons inspectors were probably operating with more freedom than in any previous round of inspections.
So under 1441 action against Saddam had been sanctioned since he did not allow inspectors 'total' freedom but the justification for the war as it was sold to the public was the existence of WMD. This still hasn't been proven and is looking less and less likely.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,471]

>If SH didn't have anything to hide, why did he deny the inspectors
>entry? Did SH require more time to bury the WMD's/produce more?

He didn't. By the time we invaded he was giving the UN everything they were asking for. From Hans Blix's final report before we invaded:

"The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect. And with one exception, it has been [without] problems. We have further had a great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good.

The environment has been workable. Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas Day and New Year's Day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct. . . .

"Mr. President, we now have an inspection apparatus that permits us to send multiple inspections teams every day all over Iraq by road or by air. Let me end by simply noting that that capability, which has been built up in a short time and which is now operating, is at the disposal of the Security Council. "

[Beerlight 0]

Quote

This still hasn't been proven and is looking less and less likely.

{rubbing crystal ball} Guess only time will tell.

Gentlemen, gentlemen.... Admit it, SH did wrong, and the coalition did right by going over there. Prisoner abuse aside, the coaltion is where it needs to be, although they could use additional assets (crystal ball was broke evidently). Is there anyone on here that truely believes that Iraq was not a haven for terrorist? If you say yes, please respond.

thank you.....
Buck

[andrewstewart 0]

Quote

Is there anyone on here that truely believes that Iraq was not a haven for terrorist? If you say yes, please respond.

Do you believe that there are now *less* terrorists in Iraq than before?

Do you believe that our current actions are *not* creating people who will seek to harm America in the future?

[Beerlight 0]

.

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Quote

This still hasn't been proven and is looking less and less likely.

{rubbing crystal ball} Guess only time will tell.

Gentlemen, gentlemen.... Admit it, SH did wrong, and the coalition did right by going over there. Prisoner abuse aside, the coaltion is where it needs to be, although they could use additional assets (crystal ball was broke evidently). Is there anyone on here that truely believes that Iraq was not a haven for terrorist? If you say yes, please respond.

thank you.....
Buck

Of course it was, just like Ireland and Florida and Saudi Arabia. Did we invade Ireland? Saudi?

Even GWB has publicly stated that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,471]

>Gentlemen, gentlemen.... Admit it, SH did wrong, and the coalition
>did right by going over there.

Admit it - the primary reason given for the invasion was stopping SH's weapons program, and we failed to even find any. And then it was to "liberate the people of Iraq," but then they seemed less than overjoyed by our occupation - and there seems to be a growing resistance movement. In a year look to see "FREE IRAQ" demonstrations all over the world.

So now we're down to "Saddam did bad things?" We used to supply him with the weapons to do those bad things! And now we are doing some of those same bad things, in case you haven't noticed.

>Prisoner abuse aside, the coaltion is where it needs to be . . .

If you believe that, then accept the additional deaths we will see. A beheading will just be the beginning. Do you really think he suffered more than a US soldier who had his legs blown off, and watched himself bleed to death? Multiply that by a few hundred, and then accept that - if we are really right where we need to be. The time to decide it wasn't acceptable was over a year ago.

>Is there anyone on here that truely believes that Iraq was not a
> haven for terrorist?

It sure is now!

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Gentlemen, gentlemen.... Admit it, SH did wrong, and the coalition
>did right by going over there.

Admit it - the primary reason given for the invasion was stopping SH's weapons program, and we failed to even find any. And then it was to "liberate the people of Iraq," but then they seemed less than overjoyed by our occupation - and there seems to be a growing resistance movement. In a year look to see "FREE IRAQ" demonstrations all over the world.

So now we're down to "Saddam did bad things?" We used to supply him with the weapons to do those bad things! And now we are doing some of those same bad things, in case you haven't noticed.

>Prisoner abuse aside, the coaltion is where it needs to be . . .

If you believe that, then accept the additional deaths we will see. A beheading will just be the beginning. Do you really think he suffered more than a US soldier who had his legs blown off, and watched himself bleed to death? Multiply that by a few hundred, and then accept that - if we are really right where we need to be. The time to decide it wasn't acceptable was over a year ago.

>Is there anyone on here that truely believes that Iraq was not a
> haven for terrorist?

It sure is now!

I seem to remember the primary reason for going into Iraq was to remove SH from power.

[TheAnvil 0]

Now that's funny. Incorrect, but funny. Managerially inept buffoons around the globe calling for Rumsfeld's resignation probably soiled themselves when they heard Bush's speech praising the man. Bush's message: Just because you're a bunch of partisan, managerially inept, loudmouthed buffoons doesn't mean I'm going to let you affect the way I run things. I liked the speech - sorry you didn't.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Now that's funny. Incorrect, but funny. Managerially inept buffoons around the globe calling for Rumsfeld's resignation probably soiled themselves when they heard Bush's speech praising the man. Bush's message: Just because you're a bunch of partisan, managerially inept, loudmouthed buffoons doesn't mean I'm going to let you affect the way I run things. I liked the speech - sorry you didn't.

Irony score: 10/10

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,471]

>I seem to remember the primary reason for going into Iraq was to
>remove SH from power.

No, the primary reason stated in the SOTU address was to stop his WMD programs; they were the grave and gathering threat. From the SOTU:

"But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."

Removing SH from power was one of 26 or so other reasons:

--------------------

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — If it seems that there have been quite a few rationales for going to war in Iraq, that’s because there have been quite a few – 27, in fact, all floated between Sept. 12, 2001, and Oct. 11, 2002, according to a new study from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. All but four of the rationales originated with the administration of President George W. Bush.

The study also finds that the Bush administration switched its focus from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein early on – only five months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.

http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/04/0510war.html

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>I seem to remember the primary reason for going into Iraq was to
>remove SH from power.

Quote

No, the primary reason stated in the SOTU address was to stop his WMD programs; they were the grave and gathering threat. From the SOTU:

"But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."

Removing SH from power was one of 26 or so other reasons:

It may have been one of 26 reasons, but I'd argue removing SH from power was the primary reason. Finding WMDs, ending abuses etc were objectives once SH had been removed, but those were secondary as they could not have been carried out until SH had been removed first. Therefore, removing SH from power had to be the primary reason.

• Quote

[wmw999 2,170]

I guess that depends on what you consider to be a reason. I'm sure that was a significant internal reason of the current government. Unfortunately, since "removing guys we don't like from power" is pretty low on the acceptable-reasons list in the world community, it's not one that they publicized.

Who else do they want to remove from power? And what are we justified in doing to make that happen? I hope the answer to that second one isn't "whatever we damn well please"

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)